EDITORIAL: Gun control ruling sensible, but far from last word (with copy of court decision)

A panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld New York's right to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons in public.

It's a good ruling, a sensible ruling and, therefore, don't get too comfortable with it.

The three-judge panel said that recent Supreme Court decisions finding individuals have a constitutional right to possess a gun within the home do not necessarily extend to a "full-carry" license for public possession in New York.

Advertisement

In 2008, the Supreme Court newly construed the Constitution to guarantee an individual right to gun ownership -- at least within the home -- as opposed to the right to bear one as a member of a militia. Prior to that ruling, it was unknown which definition applied.

The ruling involved efforts to restrict gun ownership in the District of Columbia, a federal city. In 2010, the court extended the application of the individual right to all 50 states.

Under New York state law, the right to carry a concealed weapon in public has long been limited. The state requires a license that may be issued only when an applicant can demonstrate a special need distinguishable from that of the general population, a standard that has been law since 1913.

The plaintiffs in the recent case challenged that limitation, arguing that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles citizens of good standing to a permit without having to show a special need.

The appeals panel found that the state has both a long history -- predating the U.S. Constitution -- of regulating gun possession and a demonstrable public safety interest in such regulation.

The panel also noted that the recent Supreme Court rulings asserting an individual right to bear arms for individual defense thus far have been applied only to non-public possession within the home, where "Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith."

Further, the panel noted that the Supreme Court has stated that many gun regulations should be considered "presumptively lawful."

In the absence of clarification by the Supreme Court regarding the reach of the right to bear arms beyond the home, this week's decision by the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals was prudently conservative.

The ruling acknowledges the state has a legitimate public safety interest in regulation outside the home, but refrains from concluding that the benefits of regulation necessarily outweigh any resulting harms.

It remains anyone's guess, however, what the Supreme Court might do should it get this case on appeal, or a similar case. The court has plowed new ground in defining the reach of the Second Amendment with regard to home possession and may simply be biding its time do similarly with regard to public possession.

It will be up to the states to make the case that their longstanding public safety prerogative constitutionally circumscribes who may bear what weapons in public and under what conditions.